Dismissed

Mr Siddhesh Vishnu Rane v. Official Liquidator of Kingfisher Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026CA/390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a company application (CA No. 390 of 2025) filed to recall an earlier order (dated 04.12.2025) that had dismissed CA No. 117 of 2023 for non-compliance with office objections. The court held that once an application is dismissed, filing a fresh application to recall that dismissal is not permissible; the proper remedy is an appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Siddhesh Vishnu Rane Vs Official Liquidator of… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

CNR: KAHC010849962025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 390 OF 2025

¶8

¶9

COMPANYA APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2023

¶10

¶11

COMPANY PETITION NO.214 OF 2012

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

MR. SIDDHESH VISHNU RANE, S/O. SHRI VISHNU RAMCHANDRA RANE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, B/602, TAHSHILA, SIDDHESHWAR GARDEN, DHOKALI NAKA, KOLSHET GARDEN, THANE WEST, MAHARASTRA-400607.

¶14

…APPLICANT

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. SUSHANTH BELVET, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHINTAN CHINNAPPA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF KINGFISHER AIRLINES PVT. LTD., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, NO.26-27, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHGOUD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR OL)

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012

¶24

CNR: KAHC010849962025

¶25

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 9 OF COMPANIES COURT RULES, 1959.

¶26

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri. Sushanth Belvent, counsel for Sri. Chintan Chinnappa M., for the applicant, and Sri. Jagadeeshgoud Patil, counsel for the Official Liquidator, appeared in person.

¶29

The applicant's counsel states that this Court, in its order dated 04.12.2025, dismissed Company Application No.117/2023 due to non-compliance with the office objection. Consequently, an application in C.A.No.390/2025 has been filed to recall that order. The reasons are detailed in the memorandum of facts. It is requested that the Court consider these reasons, allow the application, and set aside the dismissal order dated 04.12.2025.

¶30

The counsel for the Official Liquidator argues that the Court has already dismissed application C.A.No.117/2023, and attempting to recall that order via another application is not

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:51245 CA No. 390 of 2025 In CA No. 117 of 2023 In COP no.214 of 2012

¶34

CNR: KAHC010849962025

¶35

permissible. Instead, the proper course of action would be to file an appeal through the OSA.

¶36

After carefully reviewing the arguments and examining the documents, it is evident from the records that, despite being given adequate time, the office's objections in C.A.No.117/2023 were not addressed. As a result, the Court dismissed the application due to non-compliance with the office objection. Consequently, since the Court has dismissed the application, filing another application to recall this order is not permissible.

¶37

Accordingly, C.A.No.390/2025 is dismissed .

¶38

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.:1 Sl No.:9

Mr Siddhesh Vishnu Rane v. Official Liquidator of Kingfisher Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Siddhesh Vishnu Rane v. Official Liquidator of Kingfisher Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases